Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91222 Case Number: LCR13317 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Dispute concerning disciplinary cases involving three rail operative workers employed at Heuston Station.
Recommendation:
11. The Court in their consideration of the oral and written
submissions of the parties noted that the actions of the workers
and the response of the Company were the subject of a dispute
between the parties.
The Court also noted that, as a consequence of discussions between
them, the parties have put in place understandings which it is
anticipated will result in the reduction if not the elimination of
the difficulty which was the subject of the dispute.
The Court takes the view that the workers concerned should have
carried out the instructions of management albeit under protest.
However given the history of this dispute the Court takes the view
that the matter should be closed and any reference on personal
records should be deleted on this occasion.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91222 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13317
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning disciplinary cases involving three rail
operative workers employed at Heuston Station.
BACKGROUND:
2. The first disciplinary case arose in April, 1990. On 24th
April, 1990 the depotperson concerned was rostered from 16.00
hours to 22.40 hours, his duty was to check tickets at the barrier
at Heuston and then to act as travelling ticket collector on the
17.40 hours Dublin/Limerick train as far as Thurles and then to
travel home passenger on the 18.50 hours train ex Cork. A
situation arose where a guard was required to travel passenger by
train to the crossing point of a return gypsum train which was due
to leave Limerick at 17.15 hours. The worker travelling out would
be required to work the gypsum train from crossing point to
Dublin. The worker concerned was instructed to work the gypsum
train back from Thurles; he refused to do this and travelled back
passenger from Thurles. On 15th May, 1990 the worker concerned
was formally charged in writing as follows:
"Refusing to carry out the instructions of your Supervisor and
Station Master at Heuston Station on 24th April, 1990,
contrary to Section A Clauses (1) and (2) of the Board's Rule
Book."
3. A disciplinary hearing was held on 16th October, 1990 and the
worker was subsequently advised in writing of the outcome of the
hearing, i.e.
"Severe reprimand and a warning that any repetition will have
serious consequences."
4. This was appealed by the worker to the Regional Manager
Operations and the appeal was heard on 29th November, 1990. The
original decision was upheld and the Union was advised of this in
writing.
5. The other two disciplinary cases involved both occurred in
November, 1990. The depotperson concerned in the first case was
rostered from 00.30 hours to 7.10 hours, as stand-by for guard
duties. Late the previous evening a request was received to
provide a guard early next morning to work a freight special to
Kildare and to travel home passenger. The depotperson concerned
was instructed by his supervisor to work the train to Kildare but
refused. On 9th November, 1990 the worker concerned was formally
charged in writing as follows:
"Contrary to Sections (a), Clauses (1) and (2) of the Board's
Rule Book, refusing to carry out the instructions of your
Supervisor at Heuston Station on the 9th November, 1990."
6. A disciplinary hearing was held on 29th November, 1990 and the
worker was subsequently advised in writing of the outcome of the
hearing i.e.
"Four days suspension and a warning that you will be dismissed
if there are any further refusals by you to carry out the
instruction of your Supervisor."
7. The depotperson concerned in the third incident was rostered
from 01.00 hours to 7.40 hours, his duties were "Mails and Parcels
and as instructed by the Supervisor." When the other worker
concerned had refused to work the 06.15 hours freight special to
Kildare and to travel home passenger, the Supervisor asked this
depotperson to work it, but he also refused. The worker concerned
was formally charged in writing on 9th November, 1990. A
disciplinary hearing was held on 29th November, 1990 and the
worker was subsequently advised in writing of the outcome of the
hearing, i.e.
"Two days suspension and a warning that you will be dismissed
if there are any further refusals by you to carry out the
instructions of the Station Master or Supervisor."
8. The Union by letter of 20th December, 1990 informed the
Company that if the disciplinary charges were not withdrawn by 8th
January, 1991, it would engage in industrial action. This was one
of three notices of industrial action subsequently discussed at a
conciliation conference held in January, 1991. On 25th April,
1991 the Union referred the matter to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by
the recommendation of the Court. The Union's position is that
during the period there was considerable dissatisfaction with the
conditions of service of staff and the use of disciplinary
procedures and that, in the 3 incidents involved, the workers
concerned did not wish to work additional unrostered overtime.
The Company's position is that the refusals by the three
depotpersons concerned to carry out the instructions were
unwarranted and that two of the workers have not availed of the
appeals facility within the Company. The Court investigated the
dispute on 24th May, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. A conciliation conference was held in January, 1991 as a
result of an industrial dispute arising from the manner in
which the disciplinary procedures in the Company were being
applied. As distinct from the "alleged offences" the manner
in which the disciplinary procedures were applied and which
subsequently became a large part of the issues in dispute
should be examined. In the case of the first "alleged
offence" the hearing did not in fact take place until six
months later in the following October. During that six months
period industrial unrest was brewing in Heuston Station due to
the manner in which the conditions of service for the staff
were being ignored by management and threats of disciplinary
action were being used on staff who insisted on maintaining
their conditions of service.
2. In general terms, the workers concerned were asked to
perform a duty which would have kept them out over their
rostered finishing time. The workers' main objection to this
was that they did not wish to work additional unrostered
overtime and the Company at the time insisted that they did
not have the right to refuse to work unrostered overtime.
However, since then following a conciliation conference and
several more meetings with the Company it was accepted that
depotmen could refuse to work unrostered overtime. Guarantees
have been given and reiterated on several occasions since,
that depotmen required to work outside their normal rostered
duty would be given more than twenty four hours notice of
this. There are occasions when operating staff may be
required to work an element of unrostered overtime. This
happens when an emergency situation occurs and none of the
incidents involving these three workers come under the heading
of emergency. It was work that could easily have been covered
by normal rostering procedures as it is now. In all the
circumstances, disciplinary action should not have been taken
in the three incidents involved and all reference to them
should now be removed from the records of the three workers
concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The carriage of passengers and freight by train is the
Company's core business and all operations must be geared to
this end. It is an accepted feature of railway working that
from time to time trains must be covered at short notice. The
agreement covering rail operative grades provides for the
working of trains by depotpersons as train ticket collectors
or guards with payment of a higher duty premium and for the
working of overtime if necessary at short notice. The
agreement also provides for working in more than one superior
grade on the same day. The same higher duty payment applies
for guard duties as for train ticket checking duties. In the
cases of the three depotpersons involved the instructions
issued to them were legitimate and reasonable and there was no
excessive overtime involved. Their refusals to carry out the
instructions were unwarranted and cannot be condoned.
2. One of the cases has been fully processed through the
disciplinary machinery agreed between the Company and the
trade unions. However, in the other two cases the
disciplinary procedures have not been fully exhausted as the
two men had the right of appeal to the Regional Manager
Operations, but they did not use this facility. The agreed
procedures should be fully utilised and the outcome of the
disciplinary machinery should be accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
11. The Court in their consideration of the oral and written
submissions of the parties noted that the actions of the workers
and the response of the Company were the subject of a dispute
between the parties.
The Court also noted that, as a consequence of discussions between
them, the parties have put in place understandings which it is
anticipated will result in the reduction if not the elimination of
the difficulty which was the subject of the dispute.
The Court takes the view that the workers concerned should have
carried out the instructions of management albeit under protest.
However given the history of this dispute the Court takes the view
that the matter should be closed and any reference on personal
records should be deleted on this occasion.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
________________________
14th June, 1991. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.